RAJBIR GEHLAWAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.PC for seeking appropriate directions in FIR NO. 140 dtd. 25/2/2015/26/2/2015 registered under Ss. 420/406/120-B/34 IPC, 1860 and Ss. 4/42/76 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 at Police Station Sonipat, Haryana.

(2.) The case of the petitioners in brief as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners may be noticed as under: That they had been made a scapegoat by one Raj Bala (complainant) and certain other unknown persons with an oblique motive to pressurize and extract money from them even though they were not even remotely connected with any of the alleged offences in the FIR in question and the investigating agency and the complainant in collusion with each other had thereafter foisted a false and fabricated case upon them. It was in fact the complainant Raj Bala, who befriended petitioner NO. 2 Rani in the year 2014 and thereafter on winning her confidence, lured her to invest her money in a "committee business", which was being run by the former. However, no sooner did petitioner NO. 2 realise that Raj Bala-complainant was illegally running the aforementioned business and had been duping innocent people of large sums of money, she immediately stopped investing her money in the committee. It was thus, in this background that the complainant by way of a pre-emptive move, in order to thwart any criminal case being registered against her for her illegal activities, got the FIR in question registered against the petitioners. Learned counsel has also submitted that petitioner NO. 2 had lodged a complaint against the complainant Raj Bala and her son, who is a police official, on 17/12/2014 but to their dismay, the police officials for reasons best known to them and rather obvious, failed to act on her complaint. Thereafter, the petitioners were continuously subjected to harassment and given threats of dire consequences including false implication in cases. Subsequently, in the year 2016, the complainant Rajbala resolved and settled the dispute with the petitioners wherein she gave an affidavit to the effect that she did not want to continue with any proceedings against them. It was therefore, urged that the factum of the complainant arriving at a settlement with the petitioners further left no manner of doubt that the petitioners were indeed innocent and had been victims of false implication at the hands of complainant and the investigating agency.

(3.) Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to Annexure P-3 dtd. 27/9/2019, which was a communication sent to petitioner NO. 2 Rani Gehlawat, wife of petitioner NO. l- Rajbir Gehlawat vide which she had been intimated by the Estate officer, HSVP Sonipat, HSVP Complex, Sector-15, Sonipat, Haryana, that a letter had been received from the Police Chowki, Sector 23, Sonipat on 4/3/2015 wherein he had been directed not to permit the sale or transfer of various immoveable properties including House NO. 1911, Sector 23, Sonipat. Learned counsel has submitted that it was only on receipt of the aforementioned communication it came to the notice of the petitioners that the following properties had also been seized, attached or blocked from being sold or transferred by the investigating agency: